osbuild-composer VS sdk-java

Postgres can handle this well if you use pub/sub notification which is built-in. You can easily pick up jobs using a time-based where clause and it also scales well. There is no need to pull a complex library for this, here is a good example of such implementation.

I read through the following and I just wasn't sure if I wanted to spend time figuring out if it would work. https://github.com/osbuild/osbuild/issues/644 https://github.com/osbuild/osbuild-composer/issues/1411

The change to hash by default just landed upstream: https://github.com/osbuild/osbuild-composer/pull/2834

Based on this upstream issue and this draft pull request, osbuild-composer just doesn't support CentOS yet. To help indicate demand for this feature to the maintainers of that software, I suggest reproducing the error on CentOS Stream 8 and filing a bug as described here. Once the feature is implemented it will be available in CentOS Stream 8 first.

How does this compare against Temporal/Cadence/Conductor? Does hatchet also support durable execution?

https://temporal.io/

Flawless sounds a lot like https://temporal.io/ .

I'm wondering if it has the same scalability concerns - sticking everything in Postgres is fine at small-ish scale, but what happens when you outgrow Postgres, either because you have higher availability requirements (can't handle primary DB restarts) or because of the sheer volume of the workload?

Temporal is a scalable and reliable runtime for durable Workflow Executions. It enables you to develop as if failures don't even exist. I started exploring it over the Christmas holiday and using it for a recently open-sourced project.

I have my eyes on https://temporal.io/ for similar purposes.

Check out temporal.io open source project for a much cleaner solution using Durable Execution abstraction.

Interesting to see Netflix featured both on StackStorm & https://temporal.io/ frontpages.

Our stack at Escape is written in multiple languages because each team has specific needs. We use TypeScript for its vibrant ecosystem, Python for cybersecurity research and Go for performance-sensitive tasks. To orchestrate cross-language task orchestration, we first developed a simple request-response protocol over HTTP, but it wasn't sustainable as the Escape codebase grew rapidly. We evaluated several technologies to replace our homegrown protocol, and two emerged as the most promising options: Connect and Temporal. The title gives it away, but the reason is far from obvious

I've put a lot of time into Airflow and feel similarly that it's a huge pain and a risk to rely on it. I've replaced it with Temporal (https://temporal.io/) and while I don't have the breadth of experience with the frameworks you listed, I do think Temporal is a great replacement for Airflow.

Just to confirm my understanding; would you consider at least part of your product offering to be similar to temporal.io [1]? Your examples are reminiscent of theirs.

[1] https://temporal.io/